On 4/8/2012 1:41 PM, David Eddy wrote:
> Let me offer a smidge of context... if I'm talking to a technical/data
> person at a Fortune 500 shop & they tell me they're a Database X shop, I
> instantly know I'm not talking to the right person. The correct answer
> is "Yes." We have it—DB2, IDMS, M204, S2000, IMS, Oracle, Sybase & of
> course the Mother of all databases the $2M Excel spreadsheet—pretty much
> anything & everything. (01)
I sent my previous note before seeing this one. And it emphasizes
another reason why the Semantic Web has been a failure. (02)
The SW is dominated by academics who have never seen an actual DB shop.
Their idea of interoperability is to force everyone to adopt a solution
that is provably decidable and totally unusable. (03)
> This background is only to point out that legacy silos are here to stay...
> eventually they do fade away & get unplugged, but far more often additional
> layers are wrapped around existing silos.
>
> So the SEMANTIC CONNECTIVITY challenge becomes... [drum roll...] How do
> I know what I'm putting into the pipe at Point A when I want to tap a
> legacy source?
>
> And ... the data source is likely not webified/HTTP enabled. (04)
Yes. That is a good description of the real world. Those issues were
well known and well understood when Tim B-L proposed the SW in 1994. (05)
Unfortunately, the SW got hijacked by people with two irrelevant
goals: use XML for everything, and show that their PhD dissertations
on decidability weren't wasted. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (08)
|